From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3051 invoked by alias); 3 May 2012 21:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 3042 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2012 21:58:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2012 21:58:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43771C6CA9; Thu, 3 May 2012 17:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tL3KUrDATHc8; Thu, 3 May 2012 17:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48371C6CA4; Thu, 3 May 2012 17:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 21C6B145616; Thu, 3 May 2012 14:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 21:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, macro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] mips: Switch inferior function calls to ON_STACK method. Message-ID: <20120503215752.GK15555@adacore.com> References: <1336071802-13599-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1336071802-13599-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201205032144.q43Li5oQ009111@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201205032144.q43Li5oQ009111@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 > > +/* Implement the push_dummy_code gdbarch method for mips targets. */ > > I notice people have been adding this style of comment in some other > newly contributed targets. Do people really feel that having these is > useful? If so, can we at least settle on a consitent style? I think they are useful, because they allow us to tell people that new functions should ALL be documented, even the obvious ones that are used to implement a given hook. And since we do not want to repeat the hook's documentation, this tells the reader where to look. I am happy to standardize on any format, as long as we all agree. I will adjust the two style issues that you pointed out. Thank Mark. -- Joel